|
|||
 |
Industrial Workers of the WorldOne Big Union for All |
|
|
|
|
An Injury to One is an Injury to All
Syndicate |
||
 |
|
|
Industrial Workers of the WorldOne Big Union for All |
|
|
|
|
Syndicate |
||
|
|
I'm not defending Israels corruptions in these things, just simply saying that calling it a "dictatorship" through exagerating it's inequalties whilst completely ignoring the much higher degree of such in Muslim middle eastern nations{Palestine included} is a bit of a stretch and hypocritical.
But if it does continue to get steadily worse in Israel and does'nt get any better in the Muslim nations of the middle-east. Then no amount of western intervention will help much; all we can do then is just abandon them all to their idiocy, ignore them until the come to a lasting truce and evolution on their own, or wipe each other out{or one does the other}- at which point we can deal with whichever one is left standing in whatever way is neccasery depending on how bad the
CONT..
...the winning party is.
But, frankly, we need to probably just stop intervening and trying to play referee and parent to these two childish religiously driven death cult peoples and their nations. They are pests to us all. There's nothing we can do to help or stop this crap. I think it's time the west just say 'fuck you" and "you're on your own" to both Israel[and the Jews} and the rest of the middle east{and the Muslims}.
We instead should put our focus on fighting the corporate masters and christian puppeteers that seek to undermine our liberty and equality in our own nations. Deal with our own domestic problems first. And help only those other nations and peoples that truly want it and will not abuse our help or fall back after we've helped them{Israel and the Muslim theocracies of the mid-east obviously are not one of these}.
I am for a 'no State' solution. Common ownership of the means of production by all workers, regardless of their religion or lack of it, under their democratic control.
Indeed
and of the gov't affairs and laws of the land as well. Ie; secularism. the FULL embracing of western enlightenment values; secularism, humanism, rationalism{not enforced, just encouraged}, egalitarianism.
A move towards Libertarian Socialist or Left Libertarian rational humanist culture. A better world in general would be the logical outcome of ALL willingly embracing this.
But, it's naeive to think most would; especially Israel and the surrounding Islamic states.
Mike: The 2 state solution is not an arbitrary choice, it's not like you have given options to pick. If it was so, I would have said "Hey folks, let's have one world, no country at all". What is happening is a chronicle movement in the region about recognition of two groups of people. It needs a concrete, feasible, possible solution. We had the same sort of conflict in Ireland, we have currently the same type of conflict in Kurdistan. What's the solution? Do you see a strong worker's movement in the region, on either side of this conflict, influential enough to impose one state solution? If there is, I'm for it too. If not, then we have to deal w/ the issue at hand. What would a working class movement respond to the situation?
There is also another dimension which has imposed itself upon the conflict in the region: the bloody 'war on terror'....
Check out Palestine & Israel societies in 20 years ago, you hardly see anyone identifying him/herself as a "Jew" and "Muslim" in their conflict. It was about "Palestinian liberation" vs "Iron feast". The religious identity that Israeli right wing and Hamas is trying to shove in people's throat in the region is unfortunately the very first barrier to the conflict that must be wiped out. The recent Israeli assault fits into the 'war on terror' policy of US. This must be defeated, otherwise forget about one or two states solution, the upcoming conflicts and war would become 'holy wars', pointless, resulting in burying more Palestinians.
A) Secular characteristic and
B) Narrow down the conflict to what it is about: recognition of two EQUAL states.
C) The IRI as a strong hold of Islamic side of terrorism in the region must be ousted via a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, and that's something viable, possible.
A leftist solution will also probably entail orwellian newspeak and censorship of any language/speech/expression
There is NO left OR right solutions! Don't people get this. It is the partly the idiocy and hypcocrisy of both the left and right that have contributed to this shit and the shit the world is in!
FUCK EM BOTH!
No one falls for a logic that incorporates F-word in every other word. BTW= this wall is not about practicing democracy or freedom of speech. That part is the society's job. This wall is about my profile and the friends I respectfully discuss with no matter how different our ideas might be.
Talk/argue/debate/discuss as u wish. Save your f-words for somewhere else.
Sorry folks. Bill won't be able to post on my wall anymore.
This is not the first time in history either that socialists have to deal w/ this. As for Kurds, yes there is a similar movement in Kurdistan. Our stand? simple: Let people in kurdistan choose. While as a communist party we advocate for no separation if people vote for separation, we respect that.NO force 2ANYONE to stick to the rest of Iran. Go ahead folks, respectfully. Why? Because otherwise you have to confront the very workers you advocate for in a lose-lose WAR! There is a century-old movement based on the double-suppression in Kurdistan. However, there is no such a movement in Azerbaijan. Mike, there are two movements in the middle east rooted deeply in society that must be resolved based on acceptance of a new country: Palestine and Kurds. Nothing else.
I'm a classconscious worker, not a nationalist. I don't advocate creation of a State for any national movement. The workers have no country. They have everything to gain by realising that fact. To the degree, they swallow the nationalist propaganda of their rulers and potential rulers, workers are deluded into thinking they have class interests in common with the employing class. I'm not in to promoting illusionary consciousness. Blocking with the Khomeni nationalist-theocrats in order to overthrow the Shah was a mistake in Iran. I'm for learning from our historical mistakes, Abbas.
What about political expression of classes? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is a revolutionary socialist party within Palestinian movement. What is its options? You're to respond to people who has lived in refugee camps in generations. People who will not be taken by any country as an equal citizen. Who want a home..
Now, where in my whole assumption or my actual stand re the conflict could you find anything to do w/ nationalism?
As for blocking w/ Khomeini, I belong to a movement that emerged out of criticism of that blocking. That block however exists even today. It is a block of bourgeoisie. That 'left' still goes hand in hand w/ the IRI as soon as it gets the opportunity
I'm more agree with Abbas than with Mike : we have to see differencies between the tho camp. I thinks bourgeois and proletariat exists in Palestinian society, but most of people are out of the production. We need to give employement and social rights to them : only a socialist solution can do that.
Nationalism is particular to bourgeoisie political system. The fact that many 'new countries' emerged after the collapse of soviet is a proof that nationalism, fundamentally, lacks a theoretical basis. It is purely political. Nationalism does not necessarily creates new countries. In case of Iran for instance, there are two different nationalist political trends:
1) The chauvinist pan-Iranian which is against separation of Kurdistan only because they belong to the 'holy' land of Iran. It is ready to kill all Kurds only to keep the land.
2) The chauvinist #2 that seeks federalism. It tries a) to create a false identity for each province...
In the end of the day, nationalism is about to provide cheap labor via creation of segregation based on some arbitrary 'characteristics'.
My point through this example is that, nationalism puts the land prior to human (which in the end favors capitalism) while the basis of socialism is human being.
Now, in case of Israel/Palestine issue, the 'traditional left' solution was the left-wing of nationalism. It has already decided to assign a 'minority' adjective to Israelis. One state solution is a) gives an identity to the 'other' and b) makes a preference of the first to the 'other'. "Palestinian lived here first", "They have history", etc is nothing but nationalism, giving one 'nation' a preference over the other regardless how the 'other' see itself. Once again, based on given movements on either side of this conflict the most human-based(socialist) solution is to recognize a viable, EQUAL state of Palestine.
You're solution is specifically a national solution. Palestinian state will be not viable. Refugee "problem" will increase national antagonism. New state will be led by bourgeois and nationalist parties. Zionism will stay the base of the Israeli state. New wars will be inevitable.
The term " minority " for Israelis (who have right to continue their lives) is not a moral term, just objective one : after refugee return, they will be in minority.
So, political solutions are :
- One nationalist state build against masses of one of existent " nation " and against their "national" feelings - with "ethnic (or religious) purity". This is both the Zionist and the Hamas solution.
- Two natio
- One secular, democratic state, led by proletariat with others oppressed classes ; give equal and full rights to expression for " national feelings " of people (even for "minority", "majority" or "minority of the minority"). Of course, a communist party will advocate in this regime for worker's internationalism, world socialism, etc.
http://english.aljazeera.n
Who is to put forward and implement the 'one secular, democratic state, led by proletariat"? Where is that movement and its political parties with such a clear platform, in either side of this conflict?
Do you really think that Palestinians have another 65 years (as Mike put it earlier "They were 'naive' in 1800 and victorious by 1865." **) for this to happen? Check out the map. Compare the initial 1948 UN map w/ today's.
What has been the achievement of the 'traditional left'? how come Hamas is popular while PFLP -- the traditional left and advocate of one state -- has practically turned into a follower of Hamas, in both tactic and strategy? (Both Hamas reps and PFLP rep met w/ IRI in Syria, http://www.pflp.ps/english
You see, as 'ideal' as your solution may sound, it is a formula for passivism leaving battlefield to reactionary forces letting them slaughter Palestinians.
** I don't intend to engage Mike mind ya
(except for a very few) At any society around the wold, w/o any prior knowledge about the population, one can blindly say that over 80 per cent of em are working class, no matter if they are at work/unemployed/refugees or else. (Refugees from anywhere to anywhere are 99 per cent working class btw). The question is what is a worker's policy?
2) The very fact that a worker organization exists in West Bank and Gaza is a proof that a Palestinian state brings about the real identity of the population, rather than 'refugees in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia or Jordan' they are now 'unemployed workers in Palestine'. That's what excites me. Now, do I suggest to approve a state like the current 'Palestinain Authorities" ? Not at all. It is far from an acceptable viable, equal state, that is btw run by ...
Only a secular left can bring about and manage a viable, equal state of Palestine. That day Unions are going to be legally and respectfully recognized.
You say yourself that every existents movement are part of the problem, not of the solution .... So why " One state " is more unrealistic than "Two state" if :
" Only a secular left can bring about and manage a viable, equal state of Palestine."
The only powerfull, masses-based " secular left " possible is a secular, communist, internationalist left. So if no solution is possible without that, revolutionnaries from Israel and Palestine can build this party with the slogan " one state ".
However, the forces that can line up behind this particular resolution could be anyone that is a) secularist & b) Left (pro-humanism). Left in this context means dedication to an equal state. Which in turn means for example dedication of the resources between the 2 states on a fair basis; recognition of the other party as an equal state, politically and otherwise. This of course needs elaboration but the commitment to the idea is the first most important step.
Oslo resolution did not fail but the Israeli right-wing-religious-racis
As far as beliefs is concerned, a secular jew & a secular muslim, an atheist and a socialist would fit the bill for the cause of Israel/Palestine. From a class point of view all 4 of them could be working class or maybe not. It doesn't matter.
It was a pleasure to have a debate with you all. I hope we all have got something out of it. And remember: Based on general principles of Grocho Marxism "no matter what you say Im against it", hope you don't mind abit of humor.
Till next time, cheers
The first and the only successful experience that worker's actually got the power was Oct Rev. Lenin rightly had the add-on theory of vanguard party to concrete what Marx could not.
The period in which soviet established itself as a political power, 1917 - 1921 was never theorized by Lenin. It was Hekmat who formulated the theory of 'State in transitional period', describing the role of a newborn socialist state to its final stage..
In short, while socialism relies orthodoxly on Marx theories re social and economical relationship of a) social ownership of means of production and abolishment of wage slavery, on a political stage Marx and Engels rightly never claimed to know the detailed answers of a proletariat dictatorship, whether in its specific form or terms.
This concept of socialism was changed in the early 20th Century when social democrats and revolutionary social democrats (aka leninist Communists) started becoming heads of State.
Abbas, you're right that Marx and Engels did not attempt to give socialists a blueprint for the communist society, but the theory remains. Socialiism/communism would of necessity be classless.
Looks through all the works of Marx and Engels and you will never find a reference to a socialist or communist State and that's because such a term would contradict their theories of social revolution.
But, anyway, when revolutionnaries (i.e. exclude stalinist, maoist, etc.) speak about " Socialist State ", they speak about " State-Commune ", without separate bureaucratie, etc.
In STATE AND REVOLUTION Leinin also calls for the "equality of wages". Now, Lenin was just wrong about this and he was wrong in his understanding about what Marx wrote vis vis socialism. I'm not saying that he was being dishonest. I'm just saying that Lenin didn't understand what socialism, as Marx defined it was. In fact, a lot of revolutionaries who have read and re-read Lenin's interpretation of Marx have misunderstood what Marx was getting at.
Again, you will not find socialism/communism described as a State in Marx and Engels nor will you find mention of a socialist wage system. You will find mention of the equality of wages as a socialist system in Prodhoun.
The outline of my understandings are:
a) Marxism is a ground, fundamental work of socialism. Marx method in criticizing capitalism, in rewriting the history of man and the role of man in history is very critical. In criticizing capitalism, Marx starts from the uttermost appearance of capitalism, i.e. commodity; digs into the process in which it is produced; 'scientifically' proves the social relation on which commodity is created, and once dealt w/ the most abstract layers of that relation, he step by step returns back to the surface again tells us what maintains the capitalist relationship: the capitalist state, aka bourgeoisie dictatorship.
b) To create a socialist society, therefore, the immediate challenge of a socialist organization is the take over of the political power. Now, politics, unlike economical...
It is a critic of capitalism FROM THE WORKER POINT OF VIEW. Marxism outlines the forces capable of changing the capitalism. Marxism unlike philosophy is about CHANGING the society. It is a CRITIC of capitalism, it is NOT a proof of socialism. Socialism must be built consciously and in the process we try and try again to learn the unknown obstacles. The very first obstacle is the political power.
C) Marx learned from Paris Commune, (although initially he dis-advised the take over of power because he believed that it would be defeated, he never criticized workers. He welcomed the Paris Commune)...
To recap and finalize my note on this debate on this forum:
While socialism relies orthodoxly on Marx theories re social and economical relationship of social ownership of means of production and abolishment of wage slavery, on a political stage Marx and Engels rightly never claimed to know the detailed answers of a proletariat dictatorship, whether in its specific form or terms.
October Revolution was the one and only success of workers victory in the political stage of a socialist society. The period in which it was established was later on formulated by Mansoor Hekmat. That far we KNOW.
There are still unknown factors we have to deal with. A successful trend to establish socialism is the one who a) acknowledges the Marxism as it fundamental theories, and b) applies the past experiences as the necessary steps to reach the goal.
Therefore, a socialist state is a work-in-progress, it must constantly and consciously weight and measure the forms it implements as the social ownership for example. IF for instance any specific policy ended up to have any restriction of freedom of speech, the workers state must step back and figure out the capitalist intrusion in its economical syst
Ok. That's All from me. (CAPITAL letters are for emphasis ...not shouting :-)
My point is that, if you start from the premisis that socialism has a State and a wage system, you're starting from a position which Marx would be the first to criticize, even if you were Lenin himself.
And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
http://www.marxists.org/ar
http://www.marxists.org/ar
Let's found the party !
Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organization of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, [24*] and therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary [überflüssig, superfluous].